It is currently Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:04 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5624
Themis wrote:
I suspect the papyri was ripped by those who first removed it from it's original casing well before the papyri was brought to Joseph Smith. This also explains why other parts of the missing section were not recreated correctly. Such as the bird.


Themis wrote:
I'm aware of some of their work. Have they commented on the missing sections at the top of the papyri and how they became missing and if they match up? I think it may have been one of them that made me aware of the evidence suggesting the missing sections I am talking about were missing before Joseph got the papyri.


Image

The scrolls were damaged prior to Smith's handling. To what extent cannot be fully determined. The papyrus containing the contents of Facsimile No. 1 was no doubt damaged before Kirtland as attested in this reference:

Cleveland Whig Newspaper, Cleveland 1835 (prior to Kirtland) wrote:
There was found deposited in the arms of the old man referred to above, a book of ancient form and construction, which, to us, was by far the most interesting part of the exhibition. Its leaves were of bark, in length some 10 or 12 inches, and 3 or 4 in width. The ends are somewhat decayed, but at the center the leaves are in a state of perfect preservation. It is the writing of no ordinary penman, probably of the old man near whose heart it was deposited at the embalming. The character are the Egyptian hieroglyphics; but of what it discourses none can tell. That probably, like the name of the author, and of the figure before you, will never be unfolded. There is also another book, more decayed, and much less neatly written - its character and import involved in like mystery.


Joseph Smith fraudulently used the actual papyrus to create his story about Abraham being bound by the priest on the altar prior to the publication of the Book of Abraham. The fragments in question were placed in special glass frames and put on display in Nauvoo. Here is the actual fragment and note the penciling of the priest's human head and uplifted arm with knife in hand which Smith fictitiously included to fabricate his story. You'll please note that Smith's penciled in knife is clutched by the right hand rather than the left as shown later in the Facsimile. The whole concept of the human head and knife in the right hand is a complete blunder!

Image

This (above) is what the eyewitnesses in Nauvoo saw before the Facsimile No. 1 was cut and published! It's quite a story and Joseph Smith made it up and convinced others that it was the real deal. This business about Abraham being bound on the altar is nonsense. There are no cords whatsoever as shown in typical Egyptian scenes where prisoners are bound. Nonetheless, Smith was able to convince his followers that he was interpreting and translating Egyptian correctly. Here is one such example:

William Appleby, Journal, Church Archives MS15183 wrote:
Today I paid Br. Joseph a visit . . . . Saw the Rolls of Papyrus and the writings thereon . . . . There are likewise representations of an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar


All of this, of course, is utter and complete nonsense.

_________________
Foolish zerinus said:

"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the 'slave' is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed."


Nightlion confessed:

"I do admit Joseph Smith faked the facsimile translation. . . . Facsimiles................lies"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:36 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6291
Shulem wrote:
Did Joseph Smith instruct Reuben Hedlock to chisel the jackal snout off the original wood cut of Facsimile No. 3 prior to publication into the Times and Seasons?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No


Image

Can you sketch in what might have been chiseled out? that might give another perspective as to what was originally there.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:40 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6291
Shulem wrote:
.... I've noticed the deathly silence coming from MG's corner. I take it the troll is asleep under his bridge.

:lol:

You were absolutely masterful in shutting down the troll. A victory there, and a major victory with your new find. I'm fascinated to see how far you can go with this!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:49 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:04 am
Posts: 3962
Location: Firmly on this earth
Lemmie wrote:
Shulem wrote:
.... I've noticed the deathly silence coming from MG's corner. I take it the troll is asleep under his bridge.

:lol:

You were absolutely masterful in shutting down the troll. A victory there, and a major victory with your new find. I'm fascinated to see how far you can go with this!


Here, here!!! And a cool little lesson here is......(wait for it)......... it was done with evidence, not mere faith.

Evidence or shut up I say, and Shulem won't shut up :lol: THANK GOD.

_________________
"Scientism as a criticism most often is leveled by someone who wants to suggest dogmatic, unthinking devotion to science as a strawman criticism of someone deploying science against something they'd prefer to believe." - EAllusion


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm
Posts: 26930
Location: Off the Deep End
Lemmie wrote:
Shulem wrote:
.... I've noticed the deathly silence coming from MG's corner. I take it the troll is asleep under his bridge.

:lol:

You were absolutely masterful in shutting down the troll. A victory there, and a major victory with your new find. I'm fascinated to see how far you can go with this!


+ Infinity.

On multiple levels, this thread is poetic justice.

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:50 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 7570
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
Themis wrote:
I think one area ignored by both sides is the missing sections along the papyri matching each other in rolled form.

Fence Sitter wrote:
That is what Cook and Smith, as well as others, have used to estimate the length of the Hor scroll, so they are not being ignored.

Themis wrote:

I'm aware of some of their work. Have they commented on the missing sections at the top of the papyri and how they became missing and if they match up? I think it may have been one of them that made me aware of the evidence suggesting the missing sections I am talking about were missing before Joseph got the papyri.


So a few things to consider.

As Shulem posted above, we have a very clear description of the more or less two intact scrolls that arrived in Kirtland with Chandler. A description made prior to their arrival in Kirtland, from this newspaper article below. There were also incomplete parts of two other scrolls which are not mentioned in the article as well as the hypocephalus of Sheshonq. (Facsimile 2)

Cleveland Whig Newspaper wrote:
There was found deposited in the arms of the old man referred to above, a book of ancient form and construction, which, to us, was by far the most interesting part of the exhibition. Its leaves were of bark, in length some 10 or 12 inches, and 3 or 4 in width. The ends are somewhat decayed, but at the center the leaves are in a state of perfect preservation. It is the writing of no ordinary penman, probably of the old man near whose heart it was deposited at the embalming. The character are the Egyptian hieroglyphics; but of what it discourses none can tell. That probably, like the name of the author, and of the figure before you, will never be unfolded. There is also another book, more decayed, and much less neatly written - its character and import involved in like mystery.


These two scroll descriptions match very well to the two scrolls as we now have them.

The Ta-sherit-Min scroll, also know as the book of Joseph, fitting the first description, looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri#/media/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_II.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri#/media/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_IV.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri#/media/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_V.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri#/media/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_VI.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri#/media/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_VII.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri#/media/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_VIII.jpg



The scroll of Hor, from which Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham,fitting the second description, looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri#/media/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_I_and_XI.jpg
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/plan-of-the-house-of-the-lord-in-kirtland-ohio-fragments-circa-june-1833/4


Now the interesting thing here, besides the fact that the descriptions match up well with each scroll, is a comparison of damage to each scroll. Clearly the Hor scroll is more damaged but we also see parts of the Ta scroll that are damaged or missing. If we go to Ritner's The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Editon at the end is a very interesting section regarding 47 significant loose patches that fell off the scrolls and were kept. Some of these loose patches have even been in the possession of the Salt Lake City branch of the church since Nauvoo. The church has had a single sheet of paper since Nauvoo on which loose patches were glued and that sheet is called JSP IX or "The Church's Historian Fragment. It looks like this:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/egyptian-papyri-circa-300-bc-ad-50/15#facts

So Ritner takes all these patches and identifies where each patch belongs. In many cases he actually provides photos of the Hor or Ta scrolls and superimposed the loose patch in its correct position. 6 of the loose patches belong on the Hor scroll and the other 43 belong on the Ta scroll. What can we conclude from this?

Well first of all, the damage on the Hor scroll was there before it arrived. If that damage occurred after it had arrived we would expect more loose pieces from that scroll. We can also conclude that the Ta scroll was in even better shape when it arrived in Kirtland then it is now since so many of the patches are from that scroll. This also fits in nicely with the Cleveland Whig description.

The other interesting thing to note, is the fact that there are no patches from any other scrolls than the Hor and Ta scrolls. Gee et al are arguing that large portions of the scrolls were lost in Chicago fire. Gee is even proposing that there are two other lengthy missing scrolls. Well if we are missing so much of the papyri, why are all the extant patches from the two scrolls we still have?

So there is more to this, but I have a habit of loosing long posts before I get to post them, so I am going to post this and continue more on the next post about damage on the Hor scroll and how it is used by Cook and Smith to measure it length.

_________________
"The lives we lead now are not dress rehearsals, they are the only performance we have. Therefore what matters is what we have here, the people we know and and love and the good we can do for the world"
Sean Carroll


Last edited by Fence Sitter on Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:53 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5624
Lemmie wrote:
Can you sketch in what might have been chiseled out? that might give another perspective as to what was originally there.


I'm afraid an artistic manipulation of this kind is outside the scope of my ability in presenting something credible or realistic. It would require the work of an artist who is skilled in engraving. But from what I can see in the wood cut there is an ample footprint wherein a proper jackal head was first cut and likely test printed but afterward redesigned under the direct supervision of the prophet himself. The more I look at that wood cut under magnification the more I'm convinced the jackal head was original to the papyrus which is now lost. Why Smith would change this is anyone's guess but we have to consider the evidence and question everything.

One thing is for sure: The person in the papyrus is none other than the jackal headed god, Anubis, as represented by the characters above his head:

Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection(?), foremost of the embalming booth.

Image

Image

_________________
Foolish zerinus said:

"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the 'slave' is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed."


Nightlion confessed:

"I do admit Joseph Smith faked the facsimile translation. . . . Facsimiles................lies"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:04 am
Posts: 3962
Location: Firmly on this earth
Quote:
Fencesitter
The other interesting thing to note, is the fact that there are no patches from any other scrolls than the Hor and Ta scrolls. Gee et al are arguing that the large portion of the scrolls was lost in Chicago fire. Gee is even proposing that there are two other lengthy missing scrolls. Well if we are missing so much of the papyri, why are all the extant patches from the two scrolls we still have?

Excellent, MOST excellent observation...... WHY do we not have anything else from any other rolls except just the two (not four!!!!) that Cowdery and others only ever claimed to have possessed, IF there is anything missing? All the actual evidence shows are items of the two scrolls we have remnants of. Surmising other scrolls is always about ad hoc guessing, postulating, or even declaring stuff without actual physical evidence. The difference from scholarship and apologetics can be summed up in that last sentence.

_________________
"Scientism as a criticism most often is leveled by someone who wants to suggest dogmatic, unthinking devotion to science as a strawman criticism of someone deploying science against something they'd prefer to believe." - EAllusion


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:18 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6291
Shulem wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
Can you sketch in what might have been chiseled out? that might give another perspective as to what was originally there.


I'm afraid an artistic manipulation of this kind is outside the scope of my ability in presenting something credible or realistic. It would require the work of an artist who is skilled in engraving. But from what I can see in the wood cut there is an ample footprint wherein a proper jackal head was first cut and likely test printed but afterward redesigned under the direct supervision of the prophet himself. The more I look at that wood cut under magnification the more I'm convinced the jackal head was original to the papyrus which is now lost.
that's what I was heading toward, that the negative space supports the idea that something was there originally. just an idea, but if you could get someone to sketch it--even a couple of different ways-- it might be a good visual to support the presentation of your theory.

I'm sure you've already considered this also, but comparing the rough finish on that section to all other smoothly finished sections also supports the idea of a removal of the snout.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:35 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5624
Fence Sitter wrote:
So there is more to this, but I have a habit of loosing long posts before I get to post them, so I am going to post this and continue more on the next post about damage on the Hor scroll and how it is used by Cook and Smith to measure it length.


Fence Sitter wrote:
Gee et al are arguing that the large portion of the scrolls was lost in Chicago fire. Gee is even proposing that there are two other lengthy missing scrolls. Well if we are missing so much of the papyri, why are all the extant patches from the two scrolls we still have?



Your contributions are appreciated and enrich the thread. I can only imagine that the missing roll theory is evaporating and no longer carries weight in LDS apologetic circles. The extant papyrus and the Facsimiles demonstrate that Joseph Smith used them to translate and produce his phony interpretations. The fantasized Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar is additional proof to show how Joseph Smith and his comrades pulled off their Egyptological caper.

LDS apologists today are infinitely separated from Joseph Smith and the saints of his day. Today's saints could not go back in time knowing what they know now and live among the early saints. Today's saints fantasize in their faith and are stuck having to learn how to doubt their doubts and wait on the Lord to save them. What a horrible way to live.

_________________
Foolish zerinus said:

"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the 'slave' is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed."


Nightlion confessed:

"I do admit Joseph Smith faked the facsimile translation. . . . Facsimiles................lies"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:04 am
Posts: 3962
Location: Firmly on this earth
Shulem wrote:
Fence Sitter wrote:
So there is more to this, but I have a habit of loosing long posts before I get to post them, so I am going to post this and continue more on the next post about damage on the Hor scroll and how it is used by Cook and Smith to measure it length.


Fence Sitter wrote:
Gee et al are arguing that the large portion of the scrolls was lost in Chicago fire. Gee is even proposing that there are two other lengthy missing scrolls. Well if we are missing so much of the papyri, why are all the extant patches from the two scrolls we still have?



Your contributions are appreciated and enrich the thread. I can only imagine that the missing roll theory is evaporating and no longer carries weight in LDS apologetic circles. The extant papyrus and the Facsimiles demonstrate that Joseph Smith used them to translate and produce his phony interpretations. The fantasized Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar is additional proof to show how Joseph Smith and his comrades pulled off their Egyptological caper.

LDS apologists today are infinitely separated from Joseph Smith and the saints of his day. Today's saints could not go back in time knowing what they know now and live among the early saints. Today's saints fantasize in their faith and are stuck having to learn how to doubt their doubts and wait on the Lord to save them. What a horrible way to live.


Yep. I have come around to agreeing that the way to refute the apologists these days on the papyri and Book of Abraham issues is to quote Joseph Smith back at them. It's the entire premise and response of my paper I wrote. See here. No polemics, just the evidence from Joseph Smith himself and the probabilities http://drpepaw.wixsite.com/backyardprof ... e-Evidence

_________________
"Scientism as a criticism most often is leveled by someone who wants to suggest dogmatic, unthinking devotion to science as a strawman criticism of someone deploying science against something they'd prefer to believe." - EAllusion


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5624
Philo Sofee wrote:

Yep. I have come around to agreeing that the way to refute the apologists these days on the papyri and Book of Abraham issues is to quote Joseph Smith back at them. It's the entire premise and response of my paper I wrote. See here. No polemics, just the evidence from Joseph Smith himself and the probabilities http://drpepaw.wixsite.com/backyardprof ... e-Evidence


Yes indeed, and don't forget the 28 page thread in which zerinus got his ass kicked and has since hightailed it out of here like a deer running from the headlights.

Coward!

:lol:

Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46549

_________________
Foolish zerinus said:

"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the 'slave' is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed."


Nightlion confessed:

"I do admit Joseph Smith faked the facsimile translation. . . . Facsimiles................lies"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:04 am
Posts: 3962
Location: Firmly on this earth
Shulem wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:

Yep. I have come around to agreeing that the way to refute the apologists these days on the papyri and Book of Abraham issues is to quote Joseph Smith back at them. It's the entire premise and response of my paper I wrote. See here. No polemics, just the evidence from Joseph Smith himself and the probabilities http://drpepaw.wixsite.com/backyardprof ... e-Evidence


Yes indeed, and don't forget the 28 page thread in which zerinus got his ass kicked and has since hightailed it out of here like a deer running from the headlights.

Coward!

:lol:

Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46549


Shulem, you are a one man army/wrecking crew! That is a phenonmenal thread!

_________________
"Scientism as a criticism most often is leveled by someone who wants to suggest dogmatic, unthinking devotion to science as a strawman criticism of someone deploying science against something they'd prefer to believe." - EAllusion


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 7570
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
Themis wrote:

I'm aware of some of their work. Have they commented on the missing sections at the top of the papyri and how they became missing and if they match up? I think it may have been one of them that made me aware of the evidence suggesting the missing sections I am talking about were missing before Joseph got the papyri.


So first you may want to read this short paper by Cook and Smith demonstrating that the missing section at the interior of the Hor scroll is about 56 cm or about 22 inches. The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr

As I discussed above, I think it is reasonable to assume that the Hor scroll was in somewhat the same shape it is in now when it arrived at Kirtland. The thing with the damage on the top is that in all likelihood it occurred when the scroll was rolled up or maybe when it was unrolled.


See for example this photo or this unrolled papyrus scroll here.

So that scroll damage, be it on top or on the bottom or both as is the case with the Hor scroll, can used to measure winding lengths. A winding length is the length from from a damaged spot to a damage spot. This will either be the full circumference of the roll or 1/2 of the circumference of the roll at the damaged spots depending on whether or not the damage is completely across the top or just part way.

This is easy to demonstrate. Take a roll of toilet paper which is mostly gone, take a pair of scissors and cut a 'v' shaped section out of the top on one edge, then unwind it, you can then take the measurements of of the first few sequential notches on the outer most end of the roll and extrapolate those dimensions out to see how long the entire section of TP is. Since each dimension gets smaller as we proceed to the interior end of the roll it is possible to determine what the maximum length that the roll would have been. (With the toilet paper roll you have to determine what the circumference of the cardboard inner roll is and deduct that from your equation to get a final length but you still get the idea how this is done.)You also do not need all of the roll to make this determination, just a few successive measurements at the beginning to make the calculation.

Cook and Smith's paper lays all this out along with the math showing how they determined the length of the scroll.

_________________
"The lives we lead now are not dress rehearsals, they are the only performance we have. Therefore what matters is what we have here, the people we know and and love and the good we can do for the world"
Sean Carroll


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5624
Themis wrote:
This also explains why other parts of the missing section were not recreated correctly. Such as the bird.


Sorry I skipped over that. You know there are two birds in question.

:biggrin:

Considering the bird over Abraham's head: The bird head on the original papyrus doesn't match the Facsimile wood cut at all. Hedlock totally goofed up and was not faithful to the design leading to the actual head as shown on the papyrus -- opting for a different kind of head to represent Smith's dove rather than the Egyptian human headed Ba soul.

That's Joseph Smith, recreating his idea of ancient Egyptian funerary imagery. It's pathetic, I know. The Mormon prophet desecrated the papyrus with Christian symbolism or the sign of the dove. The Mormons just ate that garbage up along with all the other crap Smith peddled.

_________________
Foolish zerinus said:

"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the 'slave' is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed."


Nightlion confessed:

"I do admit Joseph Smith faked the facsimile translation. . . . Facsimiles................lies"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5624
Shulem wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
Can you sketch in what might have been chiseled out? that might give another perspective as to what was originally there.


I'm afraid an artistic manipulation of this kind is outside the scope of my ability in presenting something credible or realistic. It would require the work of an artist who is skilled in engraving. But from what I can see in the wood cut there is an ample footprint wherein a proper jackal head was first cut and likely test printed but afterward redesigned under the direct supervision of the prophet himself. The more I look at that wood cut under magnification the more I'm convinced the jackal head was original to the papyrus which is now lost. Why Smith would change this is anyone's guess but we have to consider the evidence and question everything.

One thing is for sure: The person in the papyrus is none other than the jackal headed god, Anubis, as represented by the characters above his head:

Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection(?), foremost of the embalming booth.

Image

Image


And so it begins!

:redface:

Image

_________________
Foolish zerinus said:

"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the 'slave' is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed."


Nightlion confessed:

"I do admit Joseph Smith faked the facsimile translation. . . . Facsimiles................lies"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:06 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:49 am
Posts: 7570
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
Shulem wrote:
I can only imagine that the missing roll theory is evaporating and no longer carries weight in LDS apologetic circles. The extant papyrus and the Facsimiles demonstrate that Joseph Smith used them to translate and produce his phony interpretations. The fantasized Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar is additional proof to show how Joseph Smith and his comrades pulled off their Egyptological caper.



Another straw to add to the already broken back of the missing scroll theory.

First off for those who do not know, there is a known missing section in the middle of the Hor/Book of Abraham scroll. No one disputes that, what is in dispute is the length of this section. Here is another tidbit from Ritner, backed up by Lanny Bell as to how long that missing section could have been based on textual analysis of other similar texts.

In your new thread about whether or not Joseph Smith had the face of Anubis altered I noted that the vignettes in books of breathing like the Hor permit were not standardized. As of 2005, thirty three examples of hieratic "Breathing Permits" had been identified. In all of these "Permits" the "text is fixed, with very little deviation" Seehere on page 2-2.

This has led Ritner to declare in 2010 in his book

Quote:
This specific form of "permit" was used by (often interrelated) priestly families in Thebes and its vicinity from the middle Ptolemaic to early Roman eras, and the limited distribution probably accounts for their uniform pattern,
which displays only minor modifications.

As a result of this uniformity, the original size of the papyrus is not in doubt.
With textual restorations and the now lost Facsimile 3, the papyrus will have measured about 150-155 cm [about 5'-0"]....there is no reasonable expectation of any further text. Gee has repeatedly insisted that the Breathing Permit was "followed by another text, the only portions of which have been preserved are the maddeningly elliptical opening words: 'Beginning of the Book of...'" No such words "have been preserved" and the statement derives from an early error in reading the text by Seyffarth and a guess, recast as a fact, by Gee.


See Ritner pg 87

We have the majority of Hor scroll from which Joseph Smith pretended to translate the Book of Abraham.
We know exactly which characters on the Hor scroll he used to produce the first chapter and a half of the Book of Abraham.
We even know that in one missing area next to where he was translating he just made up his own Egyptian characters.
We know what was on the missing portions of the Hor scroll.
We know how long the missing portion of the Hor scroll is.
There is no evidence at all that what is missing from the original Egyptian collection contains anything other than standard funerary documents. NONE.

And yet we keep hearing about the missing scroll.

_________________
"The lives we lead now are not dress rehearsals, they are the only performance we have. Therefore what matters is what we have here, the people we know and and love and the good we can do for the world"
Sean Carroll


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Posts: 9765
Location: Multiverse
It's kind of like the God of the Gaps. The incredible shrinking Book of Abraham source. :lol:

_________________
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

--Martin Luther King, Jr.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:30 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 11940
Shulem wrote:
Themis wrote:
This also explains why other parts of the missing section were not recreated correctly. Such as the bird.


Sorry I skipped over that. You know there are two birds in question.


I am, which would be another reason that the missing part of fac 1 in the papyri was missing before Joseph ever saw it. The significance of the woodcutting original having a more jackal like head just supports that the missing head of anibus is that of a jackal as Egyptology has always said. It would further undermine apologia that Joseph had a very unique scene with a human priest holding a knife. I have always thought the second hand looked more like the tip of a wing, as the other hand had all four fingers of the same length, the other supposed fingers were feathered out at different lengths.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5624
Fence Sitter wrote:
And yet we keep hearing about the missing scroll.


Thank you for the contribution and source material that provides expert analysis involving the papyrus. The missing roll theory is getting smaller and smaller with each passing day. Eventually it will be totally disregarded and the catalyst theory will take center stage. But with that said, the catalyst theory is already DOA and is something entirely concocted by modern Mormons who run the early saints over with their apologetic bus. Today's apologists are heartless and run them over leaving a pile of bodies under the bus, most notably, poor Joseph who started the whole thing. The prophet Joseph Smith is under the bus.

_________________
Foolish zerinus said:

"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the 'slave' is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed."


Nightlion confessed:

"I do admit Joseph Smith faked the facsimile translation. . . . Facsimiles................lies"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A few questions for Shulem
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5624
Themis wrote:

I am, which would be another reason that the missing part of fac 1 in the papyri was missing before Joseph ever saw it. The significance of the woodcutting original having a more jackal like head just supports that the missing head of anibus is that of a jackal as Egyptology has always said. It would further undermine apologia that Joseph had a very unique scene with a human priest holding a knife. I have always thought the second hand looked more like the tip of a wing, as the other hand had all four fingers of the same length, the other supposed fingers were feathered out at different lengths.


Prior to the printing of the actual Facsimile the only knife people saw was the one Joseph Smith penciled in with the fictitious human head on the paper backing in which the papyrus was mounted. Some knife!

:lol:

The knife in the actual Facsimile was a later convention taken out of Joseph Smith's Egyptian play book. The first knife was rejected and a second knife was fabricated right out of thin air along with the rest of Joseph's silly Egyptian revelations.

_________________
Foolish zerinus said:

"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the 'slave' is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed."


Nightlion confessed:

"I do admit Joseph Smith faked the facsimile translation. . . . Facsimiles................lies"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrW, Google [Bot] and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group